From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) My main question is that if this article is put under the greater purview of WikiProject Psycology, will that increase the reader base of this article? Not that such an expansion of the reader base is unwelcome, mind you. Hopefully those interested in psycology will not be so quick to dismiss the major premises of the article, and instead focus upon the smaller nuances and wording. The ratings are justified, by the way, in their own language directly, for example see the page on quality.

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Archives Talk Page Archive I Talk Page Archive II Talk Page Archive III

Contents 1 The Wiki Psychology Banner? 1.1 Infatuation 2 Sign here please 2.1 Deleted Sections

[edit] The Wiki Psychology Banner?

Will putting this article under the greater purview of WikiProject Psycology will increase the reader base of this article? Not that such an expansion of the reader base is unwelcome, mind you. Hopefully those interested in psycology will not be so quick to dismiss the major premises of the article, and instead focus upon the smaller nuances and wording. The ratings are justified, by the way, in their own language directly, for example see quality. sudoartiste 22:16, 2 January, 2007 (PST).

It should help get people interested in the topic here to improve it. I think it's more of a Wikipedia development strategy, to help editors work together than for the casual person looking for info. That's just my take on it though. Aleta 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infatuation

Several people have asked lately why infatuation, along with other things, redirect here. The main reason is because no one has written articles for those yet. They should not redirect here. Excluding that most links to infatuation are not using it in the "I'm oh so in love with this person" sense, such as the Star Trek references it has. But let me explain why limerence is not infatuation, or at least why there should be different articles. Limerence is an attempt at a study into the nature of romantic love, it has a specific definition. Moreover, it can have low levels. The course of limerence is not always an arching to intensity and then puttering down and it does not work like clockwork. Infatuation is an intense feeling of a person to anything. It needs its own article. That said, yes, this article needs, more than anything, some psychologists to edit it. It needs to be free of the people who want to write what they feel. It needs people who have studied personal romantic relationships to come in and put this article in its place. At the very least, it needs people doing research into the subject even if they are not experts. That way, we will have informed editors instead of people who change things because they feel it should be different. Oh, and maybe should someone archive the talk page? abexy 09:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi abexy and everyone, should the entire talk page be archived in one big wad or sectioned off? I'd copied some older entries (2004-2005, with stray 2006 comments) in my sandbox as an example and am working on others as I get a chance. I kept it sandboxed for now pending feedback, rather than just trimming the talk page without warning. Let me know what you think. Jaguara 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done (falls over) Jaguara 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sign here please

Dear contributors, commentators and editors: please sign, even if you are an unregistered user. Unsigned blocks of text make me wonder if people are arguing with themselves. You don't have to be fancy, there's a little button on top of the edit page that'll do the markup for you. It's a real pain in the butt going through the history and adding sigs by hand. Now, back to the topic at hand, Limerance. --Jaguara 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Sections

84.68.106.240 deleted the Sexuality and Limerent reaction sections. Now, I'll be honest, I was never a fan of the limerent reaction section or the section that follows it, and this article does need to be simplified, but deleting sections without discussion is not the way to do it. abexy 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that we remove, or greatly reduce, the sections Limerent reaction and Bond varieties. These sections are both accessory information which are not necessary, complicate the article, and are lengthy. abexy 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you should remove it, though you might consider it accessory information, the whole point of wikipedia is to cover topics expansively, and in this case it does contain information unique from other parts of the article. Kuf360 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)